Talk:Klingon history
Merge History section moved from Klingon Empire in the same fashion the history section from Dominion was moved to Dominion history, as mentioned in Talk:Dominion history and as further discussed in Talk:History. --Alan del Beccio 02:43, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) Peer review Possible candidate for FA. Add your opinions. --Memory 22:40, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC) :There defintely needs to be a mention of the Battle of Qam-chee in the opening paragraph around Kahless and Lukara. :I'm sure there are also plenty of Klingon Rituals we know about that have been described as "hundreds" or "thousands" of years old, so some mention of a few of those - the more notable for historical reasons, like commemorating battles or rulers, etc - should be mentioned. :And do we have nothing between 17th Century and the 22nd Century when they suddenly have "several star systems"? Some off-hand reference about when the conquered or annexed this system or that? Something that can add to their expansion in those 500 years. ::Then we need episode references. Suggestions? --Memory 18:46, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC) :::"Looking for par'Mach" for Qam-chee. The TNG episode with "Alexander from the future" for at least one of the latter. Logan 5 02:33, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Finally, there really needs to be a chronology at the end with at least the most significant dates. Logan 5 04:36, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'2218' - Just about the entire article is fine. The only part I object to is the italicized reference to the 2218 date, which is documented on this article's Talk page. --Julianbaischir 01:51, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::See --Memory 18:46, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC) :::Bernd's site is well-renowned for its dedication to detail and his point of view on the matter would seem to match mine.--Julianbaischir 02:21, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC) I would definitely like to see the long indented/italicized section on the "augment virus" turned into a background section. Hopefully I can get a chance to read the full article tomorrow. Weyoun 07:22, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC) All issues addressed here have been attended to. Moving article to FA candidates. --36ophiuchi 17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Forum:Klingon First Contact I'm a bit surprised that no one's asked this yet, at least here. In the TOS episode , Dr. Leonard McCoy states that, at that time (2268), the Klingons had been adversaries of the Federation (or at least humans) for 50 years. In TNG s set in 2367, Jean-Luc Picard states that "centuries ago, disasterous contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war, and it was decided then that we would do surveillance before making first contact." Yet in the pilot , we see that First Contact was a full 117 years prior to "Day of the Dove" and it was hardly a major disaster, nor would it have caused Starfleet to rethink its first contact protocols since it was a Klingon who first landed on Earth. In other words, first contact occured differently than the way Picard said it did. Picard also said the contact was "centuries" ago from 2367, meaning it had to happen at least sometime around 2167, but McCoy stated it was 50 years before 2268, placing the beginning of the conflict at 2218. So there lies another contradiction. I have a theory that there may have actually been two contacts, one in 2151 and another in 2218. Perhaps sometime after the end of Enterprise, the Klingons demanded not to be bothered by Starfleet again, but in 2218, something happened to bring the two powers into conflict. Keep in mind that Picard did not say "disasterous FIRST contact" with the Klingons, merely a "disasterous contact." Although a first contact would seem to be the implication of the statement, it's possible he was referring to another contact, although the 2218 date still contadicts his comment of it occuring "centuries ago." Anyway, I've already carried this on for too long and I apologize for that. So, my question is this: Could there be any possible explanation for this discremancy that does not involve placing Enterprise in an alternate timeline created by the Temporal Cold War? Also, why do McCoy's statement and Picard's statement contradict each other in stating the timeframe in which Klingons and humans became enemies? Any new theories and comments on my theory would be appreciated, and again, I apologize for the great length. --Shran 03:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Having had time to think about it, I really don't think there's any contradiction at all. When Picard stated that "centuries ago, disasterous contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war," he meant that the numberous encounters between humans and the Federation - beginning in 2151 - ultimately led to the two powers becoming enemies in the 23rd century. In other words, after the less-than-successful First Contact seen in "Broken Bow," humans and Klingons would have repeated encounters throughout the next several decades, sometimes resulting in embarassment on the part of the Klingons. In 2218, however, some major incident occured and, having had enough of our meddling, the Klingons became our enemies. By 2223, a tense cold war had begun between the two that would last for seventy years until the Khitomer Conference in . Following this, Starfleet decided to adopt a policy of covert surveillance to ensure that similar incidents do not occur with other races. This explanation serves to confirm both Picard's and Dr. McCoy's statements while also clearing of any wrong-doing in this matter. Now if only we could solve the whole cloaking technology problem... --Shran 07:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This makes sense to me, thanks for clearing that up. as for cloak? untill the romulan episode that was easily explainible. Spock said something about the bending of light, the suliban didnt seem to use a bending of light... (Trip's arm being cloaked) ::Actually, that is a good point, and the Romulan episode does not counter it. I don't believe it says the principle of the Romulan BoP cloaks, only that they are more advanced than the mines, and immune to the quantum beacons. They could still have operated on the same principle. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) :::There is no such line by McCoy referring to 50 years of conflict in the episode "Day of The Dove." This has been debunked numerous times. Sir Rhosis 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Date Reference from "Day of the Dove" I know this date was included in Michael and Denise Okuda's Star Trek Chronology with "Day of the Dove" cited as the source, but does anyone know where in the episode McCoy allegedly mentions the 50 year figure? I've gone over the episode several times and cannot find it. I have a strong suspicion the line may have been present in a script, but not in the aired episode. Since we only concern ourselves with canon references, shouldn't this be relegated to apocryha or the references otherwise deleted? I'm surprised this hasn't come up before now. --Julianbaischir 17:33, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Did you view the episode on DVD or was it recorded from the Sci-Fi Channel or another TV station? If it's the latter, then the episode was likely edited for time. Personally, I don't recall the point at which McCoy makes the comment, and I have not been able to find it in the transcript for the episode, but I wouldn't think something like this would have been noted as a solid part of Trek continuity for so long if it didn't make it to air. --From Andoria with Love 18:27, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) I've viewed it on DVD and laserdisc several times and there's no mention on either. One of the main reasons it has become entrenched in Trek lore was its inclusion in the Okudas' chronology, which many believe to be an infallible resource. I'm not trying to knock the Okudas' exhaustive research here, but I'd just like to know where this legendary line, that has caused so much controversy in Trek circles, is located within the span of the televised episode.--Julianbaischir 19:20, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) :: He's right. There was no such reference. --Alan 04:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC) The First Draft script for "Day of the Dove" by Jerome Bixby (dated August 9, 1968) has the relevant dialogue from Dr. McCoy. After Kang (Kor in this draft) and Mara and the rest of the Klingons are taken from the transporter room, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Chekov also leave the transporter room, chatting while walking down the corridor and then continuing their conversation in the turbo-lift. SCENE 26 INT. LIFT - FOUR Doors close -- lift starts motion. McCOY (sour) Fifty years -- eyeball to eyeball with the Klingon Empire. They've spied -- raided our outposts -- pirated merchant lanes. A thousand provocations, and the Federation has always managed to avoid war. Now, this crazy business could pull the trigger! SPOCK Our log-tapes will indicate our innocence in the matter. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee they will be believed. KIRK One party -- with violent ideas -- and the willingness to defend them to someone else's death. (pointed) The essence of war, Mister Chekov ...and of prejudice. Chekov's expression is stubbornly unrelenting. ********** The line doesn't survive in the final episode--and McCoy's dialogue in Scene 26 in the turbo-lift as ultimately shot doesn't have any cutaways. So it's not like the line was filmed but then trimmed out somehow at some point. I think it's this line that survives in James Blish's adaptation of the episode in the Star Trek 11 book that people "heard" in their imaginations while reading. I don't know how canon to consider early drafts of scripts. But it's not like the "50 years of conflict with the Klingons" notion is purely mythical. GSchnitzer 05:01, May 22, 2010 (UTC) Cold War, Conflict, etc The initial contact between the Klingons and Earth WAS disasterous, and it DID almost lead to war. A Klingon crash lands, is almost shot by a farmer, captured from an Earth ship by the Suluban, and barely makes it back to Q'onos. And the cold, near-conflict between the Klingons and Earth thruough Enterprise could be considered part of the Cold War. I don't see much conflict with TOS, TNG, and ENT remarks except dates which, according to the above section, may or may not have been said.-- 16:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC) :Nothing disastrous happened in Broken Bow at all. The Klingon returned home, safe and sound, walking and talking, the thing he was transporting was delivered to the Klingons; not only did nothing disastrous happen, the first contact was depicted as positively great; especially by Klingon standards. Shot by a farmer? Big deal. Klingons are a warrior culture; they know about shooting and killing someone when you believe you are under attack. If the Klingons were peace loving hippies some might consider the farmer trigger happy, and start seeing all of humanity like that if no one had a problem with what the farmer did, but these are the Klingons. Again I'm thinking that the 2nd and 3rd paras of speculation (plus the in-universe para underneath) under "Augment Crisis" seems to once again mention this apparently non-existent "Day of the Dove" line. Could someone more knowledgeable about this fix it? (And leave a note about the non-existent line?) The speculation is also misplaced (if at all, it should be under "First contact").– Cleanse talk 08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC) :I did some rewording and removed the pure speculation (MA is a an encyclopedia!) aswell as the ungrounded claims that ENT is contradicting everything and so forth... . It would be nice if someone could review my work, so we can remove the template. --36ophiuchi 17:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC) That looks fine to me, so I removed the PNA. Good work. – Cleanse 02:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Forum:The Traitors of Kling! Okay, everyone (everyone cool that is) knows Wesley Crusher's line: : Is this before the Klingons joined the Federation? Most people ignore this, but we can't. So, what does this mean? How did the Klingons join the Federation? Some say the Klingons joined the Federation as members, even though this doesn't seem to be the case in later episodes. How should this seeming inconsistency be "resolved?"--Tim Thomason 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) :As far as I am concerned, it means they "joined the Federation in friendship". We have overwhelming evidence they were not in the Federation at the time of TNG, and at the time when that would have been, the Federation and the Klingons are stated to almost be at war in . --OuroborosCobra talk 04:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ::That said, there's no evidence to contradict that the Klingons had, at one time, been members of the Federation but then backed out. This supports that theory, although it certainly isn't hard evidence. --From Andoria with Love 04:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) :It isn't evidence of anything. For all we know, standard practice on Klingon ships was to have the communication system put a picture of their government symbol and that of who they are communicating with behind them when talking to another ship. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ::There's also the fact that the three stars on the Federation logo were originally supposed to represent Earth, Vulcan, and Qo'noS. But, shhh! Don't tell anybody! --From Andoria with Love 04:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) One's probably Andoria (joke). To me that line doesn't necessitate "became members." Joining can mean several things, including alliances, friendships, ummm... maybe on various patrols or even the Officer Exchange Program. I think it should be clearly noted in "italics"/background that they might have been members and not stated outright.--Tim Thomason 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) :::I think it had been made very, very clear that this line has been ret-conned out of continuity. Blame it on Wesley's stupidity. -- Jaz talk 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) :I would add that if we look hard enough, we can probably find a line about "the Romulans joining the Federation", said during the Dominion war. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ::::If Wesley Crusher stated it, I just shrug it off and ignore it, ever since his little ship take-over stunt in ......just kidding :P. Seriously though, this is a difficult topic to grasp, especially since Wesley's statement can be interpreted in many ways, such as joined meaning friendship. I honestly like that idea the best. - Enzo Aquarius 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ::To Jaz: There's no such thing as ret-conning on Memory Alpha. Everything said and done is canon. And besides, Picard agreed with Wesley and he was no idiot. --From Andoria with Love 04:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) :Picard was humoring the idiot. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ::The fact that Picard agreed with him adds even more hay to the fire. Nonetheless, for all we know, they were refering to an alliance, such as that done in the Dominion War between the Federation, Klingons and Romulans. In that instance, one could technically say the Romulans 'joined' the Federation (and Klingons). - Enzo Aquarius 04:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) i think the real question here is 'joined the federation' in what? there is nothing said about membership in anything. who knows how many types of political groups the federation are members of. -- Klingons in the Federation The Klingons briefly became members of the Federation at some point after 2327, but before 2365. ( ) That argument is very doubtful. http://titulky.trekdnes.cz/titulky/tng-ep043.srt * "It was little more than a galactic outpost in those days." * "Before the Klingons joined the Federation?" * "That's right." When they are talking about Klingons joining the Federation, I rather think of Klingons joining an alliance with the Federation than a full temporary integration of the whole Empire, which would be rather contradicted with the future klingon-Federation relations. - From Cardassia with pain 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC) :Agreed, Young Ens Crusher simply misspoke, and meant to say "Before the Klingons joined with the Federation?" Euph 22 20:45, March 4, 2012 (UTC)mike Klingon History (Affects several articles) :The following was moved from Ten Forward. I've been looking at the script of "You Are Cordially..." and came across the following dialogue: SIRELLA: I am familiar with Klingon history. Now return to the story of my twenty-third maternal grandmother, Shenara daughter of Emperor Reclaw in the Second Dynasty. (Some lines omitted) DAX: My pleasure. Let's see where was I -- oh yes. Shenara, the daughter of the Emperor, later married Keltar, son of Torva in the year of Kahless one hundred fifty-two... I'm assuming that the date didn't make it into the final broadcast, but if Kahless is 9th century, and the 24th century is 1,000 Klingon years later, this suggests the 11th century rather than later. My own guesses at some numbers would then give a Klingon generation of 57 Earth years, or 35 Klingon years, and a marriage date around 1013. I've not started tampering with any entries, but I would like to offer this as a suggestion for dating the end of the Klingon Second Dynasty and the beginning of the Third to the 11th rather than the 16th century. – jimcat :I'm not even exactly sure what is being suggested here, and based on what parts of the quoted dialogue. It seems as if the only info we can extract from the quote is that both Shenara and the Second Dynasty existed in the Klingon year 152 - nothing more, nothing less...? -- Cid Highwind 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC) It looks as if I picked the wrong place to post after all (sorry for any inconvenience), and maybe I should have quoted more of the script. The bits I passed over: :DAX: ... but the second Dynasty ended when General K'Trelan assassinated Emperor Reclaw. For the next ten years, the Empire was ruled by a council elected by the people. Modern-day Klingon historians refer to this as "The Dark Time," ... When the Third Dynasty was founded ten years later, a new group of Klingons were given the titles and names of the original Imperial Family in order to create the illusion of an unbroken line. So the woman you think of as your twenty-third maternal grandmother isn't related to you at all. Your real ancestor's name was Karana... one of the concubines living outside the Imperial stables. This places the end of the Second and beginning of the Third Dynasties as sometime before 152 since the marriage is later than all this, but presumably within a single Klingon lifetime (otherwise why the elaborate renaming?) My suggestion is simply that if we know approximately when Kahless lived, and that 2374 is year 999, then a reasonable guess as to 152 (and the latest possible date for the founding of the Third Dynasty) would be the eleventh century. I don't think there's enough evidence for anything more, the 1013 date was just me playing around with a spreadsheet to get some rough figures. I'd be the first to admit it's a very flimsy construction, but it is based on a specific source (the final draft script, dated September 5 1997). Where's the date Memory Alpha's using now from? : ) -- jimcat 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Featured article nomination After I've addressed all issues mentioned in the article's peer review and further complemented it with additional illustrations, I deem it ready to be seriously considered as a featured article. --36ophiuchi 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC) *'Support': Very well detailed. As far as I can tell, it covers all Klingon history. -- TrekFan 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC) *'Support': Cracking article, very thorough and informative. – Bertaut talk 17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC) *'Support': Detailed and comprehensive, and obviously a lot of hard work and research has gone into this. A great resource for anybody interested in Klingon history, and brilliantly navigates the patchwork and sometimes conflicting continuity established on-screen. I enjoyed reading this, it's nicely illustrated and I actually felt like I learnt some interesting history from it! Definitely deserves to be featured. -- Taduolus 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC) *'Support': Very good article. Excellent, in fact. However, I think it's missing a small part: remember when Jadzia is talking about the ancient dynasties to Sirella, maybe that part should be included, or the people should be in a "more references" section. Dave 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC) ::The info you're referring to actually is already part of the article. Just look under "Early history". --36ophiuchi 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) :::Oh yeah, I had read it. Sorry, I forget these little things. Thanks :) Dave 19:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC) *'VIGOROUS SUPPORT ' I read this article and felt as if I were reading it in Britannica, World Book or some other well known encyclopedia. Tone, style, exactly right for an encyclopedic strictly informational piece. – [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) *'Support!' Very, very nicely done! :) ~Anya Prynn | ''Talk'' 00:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Date for the dark time - canon? While I don't think it's necessary to revive the previous discussion, I have to re-ask a question asked there and never answered; Where was it ever stated that the dark time corresponds with the 16th century. It doesn't seem to be in the episode (unless it's stated in Klingon), but it's stated here, in 16th century and in Second Dynasty. -- Capricorn 17:37, October 20, 2010 (UTC) Qam-Chee The article's wrong; the final battle between Kahless and Molor wasn't at Qam-Chee -- Molor's troops were involved in that battle, but there's no reference to Molor's personal involvement. The battle where Kahless killed Molor took place at the Skral River, as described in the drinking song. -- 04:00, August 31, 2013 (UTC) Removed note It seems that, much like the Romulans during the century-long gap between the Original Series and The Next Generation, the Klingons withdrew into a period of insolationism during the century-long gap between Star Trek: Enterprise and Star Trek:Discovery. :The reason for their absence being insolationism is speculative, and doesn't even fit well with the facts given in the episode. Namely that they did continue to battle the UFP on occasion, including the presumably Klingon-initiated Doctari Alpha attack. And the fact that a sort-of explanation was provided in the episode: "their empire has been in disarray for generations" -- Capricorn (talk) 03:36, September 27, 2017 (UTC)